Unfortunately, we cannot count on the individuals feeding off the Monsanto's tit to react. . . and that includes most politicians! I'm curious. . . how many of you would knowingly consume genetically modified foods? (Over 50 countries require that GMO foods be labeled as such, or have banned them completely. USA does not require that we know)

"Every single independent study conducted on the impact of genetically modified food shows that it damages organs, it causes infertility, it causes immune system failure, it causes holes in the GI tract, and it causes multiple organ system failure.independent study."...Seeds of Death...Unveiling the Lies of GMOs documentary

I'm in the UK,so GM foods have to be labelled here, for now anyway,although some people in government are trying to change that . i personally would not eat GM foods, but there is another issue and that is the fact that they are not labelled so you are not given a choice. Where else does this happen? would you buy a car and not be told how fast it went, or how much fuel it consumed. could you just be sold " meat" without knowing what animal it came from, or " fish" without knowing if there was a risk of mercury or radiation. They know that if it was correctly labelled people would not buy it, so to get around this they lie.this is wrong on every level

We've had this posted here before. We'll get the same emotional presentations, full of much heat and little light.

First... there is nothing inherently wrong with something being "genetically modified." Natural selection is genetic modification the old-fashioned way, and we use that all the time to produce what we want.

GMO isn't Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory of evil.

Most every major scientific advancement (e.g. refrigeration, microwave ovens, cell phones) has been met with hysteria over long-term consequences of their use. Time has shown the hysteria to be much ado about nothing. But it makes for good press, and there's always some greenie who can make a fortune over a book deal.

Every once in a while - as with thalidomide - scientific advancement isn't.

So these individual worst cases are often brought up to add a "fear factor" to the unknown. Sometimes the fear is warranted, and sometimes it's ignorant hysteria.

The bottom line is this:

GMO is inherently neither good nor bad. It has to be considered one application at a time....

Nature produces genetic modifications all the time. We exist as a species today because of thousands of genetic modifications over time by Nature....

Without GMO, we may never conquer some tragedies of Nature such as the loss of the American Chestnut. Without GMO, we may never conquer the next "Irish potato famine" right around the corner. (That killed a million, by the way...)...

Without good research, we won't be able to judge what works via GMO from what doesn't....

Many, many more people are killed from the improper handling of food than they ever will be by GMO....

Many, many more people will starve to death than will ever be killed by genetic modifications designed to feed the starving of the world....

Many, many more people will die early deaths from the excesses of wealth (e.g. Type II diabetes) than they ever will from GMO.

I have no problem with "proper labeling". But good luck with that. Eco-freaks are just leaving themselves vulnerable to capitalists who know how to charge more for words on a label.

Considering our track record so far, it is understandable that people don't trust other people. Just because the word "science" is involved, doesn't really mean anything as far as morals, integrity, truth, etc.

Whether GM crops are good or bad is neither here nor there. The issue is that they are selling you something that , if you knew what it was, you wouldn't buy it. In effect they are lying to you with the conivance of subsequent governments. Which begs the question.if they are so safe then why cannot they sell them as GM foods?people are not being given a choice, this is not capitalsim it is food fascism where big business and government get together, withold the facts and force it upon the public.Let us be honest if people had a choice they would not choose GM crops, and it doesn't matter how well reasoned the argument is ( and I'm yet to hear one that is) for GM crops, that is not the issue. The issue is " WHERE is the capitalistic freedom of choice?Would you accept this lack of freedom in anything else.suppose I sold you a steak, but refused to reveal what animal it came from, or just sold you some "Meat" or some "Fish" would that be good enough for you?.if it isn't, and I for one don't think it should be.then there should be a public outcry against not labelling GM foods as such.America is fast becoming a fascist state.and this along with "To big To fail" banks is a prinme example of it.the merger of state and corporate finance..without it Monsanto would go down the shitter where it belongs.

Ethics in science is taught today to every scientist seeking a federal grant. Been there, done that. Ask me about Tuskegee. Ask me about human investigation committees to which I had to submit all my grant proposals. We learn by our past.

fivedragons wrote:Science is done by human beings. Human beings are what they are.

The best science today happens because of money and by the drive of passionate, compassionate humans. My work today is the personification of that. I save lives for a living, and when we do so we save and/or make money. It's not a bad gig.

fivedragons wrote:BTW, the "potato famine" could just as easily be labeled as the "English taking all the other food besides potatoes famine."

Partially true.

The Great Influenza - the greatest epidemic of all times - happened partially due to the emergence of an unusual virus and partially due to the follies of man. Most clusterfuks are like that.

jorvik wrote:The issue is that they are selling you something that , if you knew what it was, you wouldn't buy it.

On the contrary. If I knew the reason for the genetic modification and I read the research, I quite likely would seek it out and be a passionate champion of it.

Ask me about wiregrass. Give me a GM strain of fescue resistant to Roundup and I very well might buy it today.

Ask me about the American Chestnut. Give me a GM strain resistant to blight and I would start the reforestation of America today. In my yard. Next to the American Chestnut trees that never get taller than 10 feet.

Well I didn't mean you personally Bill .I mean they wouldn't go to all that trouble just for you.but generally the population at large if given the choice would avoid GM foods, as they have in Europe and of course it has been banned in many countries.So to avoid this inconvenience to their profits they don't list it.....and as I said before would you allow this with any other food, or a car for example.of course you wouldn't...........The American people deserve the right to choose what they eat.It shouldn't be decided by politicians who have been bought by Monsanto

Our food label makers are allowed to print that their food comes 100 percent from non-GMO sources. And people pay a tidy sum of money for those words on a label. It makes them feel better. Hey... placebo works!

To *require* that everything and anything be put on food labels is just more government bureaucracy and labeling chicanery. The law of unintended consequences applies. More regulations = more government jobs = more taxation = more money stolen from those who work for a living. No thank you.

Banning Genetically Modified food sources is ignorance at its finest. Good luck maintaining that over time. But governments are entitled to do so.

That's back to front Bill. Would you like to pay extra money when you buy fish to have it labelled " 100% fish", or maybe you would like to dispence with the " Made in China" logo because it doesn't logically matter where it is made

To be against more funding for public schools does not imply I am against funding public schools.

Nice try though...

(Your two logical fallacies were taught to me in high school debate class and ECON 101)

Be careful what you wish for. It's kind of like the "Made in..." argument you just brought up. Virtually *nothing* is made in one place any more.

You should see the quantitative/qualitative legalese doublespeak on the sales tags of our automobiles. It's a lawyer's dream and a consumer's nightmare. Allegedly the Subaru I just bought was manufactured in Indiana. Yea... mostly. The "final assembly." Whatever that is... At least I allegedly sent no money to Government Motors. But I'll never really know for sure. Everyone is in everyone else's business - nationally and internationally.

Good luck keeping yourself clean of GMO. You might want to take daily stool samples - just in case.

I don't see why they shouldn't have to label their products. I don't have a fear of GMO in theory or in general, but I think there is insufficient oversight. Other food additives have to be labelled, why not those created by GMOs? Yes, genes are genes, but at the moment, a company is essentially allowed to put any proteins they want in their food without labeling or approval, if they do it through genes. That doesn't make sense to me. It's not that GMO food is unhealthy by virtue of it's being GMO, it's that we have no serious regulations around it. The FDA consultation process for reviewing GMO products is entirely voluntary. Given that, I think it's entirely appropriate to want labeling for these additives which have no serious oversight.

FDA encourages developers of GE plants to consult with the agency before marketing their products. Although the consultation is voluntary, Keefe says developers find it helpful in determining the steps necessary to ensure that food products made from their plants are safe and otherwise lawful.

Emphasis mine

Some of us love business enough to blindly trust them to do the right thing. Me, I think it's obvious that if you're trusting a company to do the right thing when it contradicts the demands of their shareholders, you're putting yourself at risk.

Addendum: Yes Bill, I know that you believe ethical business is smart business in the long run. I think that's a red herring. It may well be true, but knowing that an unethical business that did me harm filed for bankruptcy isn't much comfort.